Hitler, Fascism and the right wing

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am not for a "morality" police of any kind.

So you're against the Legal Code?

I have never caught an anarchist vibe from you. Are you sure you're against the enforcement of soundly reasoned morality?

Help a brother out here... will ya?

Now you are just being snarky and daft. You know what I mean by the term "morality police"(that means something like the religious police in Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled territory that enforces religious edicts), obviously I am for a legal code. If only options are the extremes like being a morally nihilistic anarchist or being like the Taliban than you are an socially autistic person that cant understand the concept of degree.

OH! I see... I've just got this thing about the misnomer wherein the law can't be affiliated with morality due to the sacrosanct myth of 'separation of church and state'... (It's in the Constitution, somewhere... no one seems to know where, but I've been assured that it is.) So when I see 'morality and law' in a sentence where someone has stated a disregard for morality, in legal terms, I generally follow it up, with prejudice.

Rest assured, I mean you no malice.

 

[kaz]

I don't know what to tell you, but Libertarians are Liberals(Libertarianism was born of classic liberalism). I don't know what to tell you if you don't understand that libertarianism is merely a school of liberal thought. Open a history book I guess to start, go to wiki, or whatever..

Um ... read my sig ...

The point I am making is that those vices do harm others, and often oneself. And on that point, today we seem to live in a society based on the faulty "harm principle". We always emphasize, "don't hurt others" or "as long as it is consensual"; but we have lost sight of the affect our actions have not only on others but how otherwise "consensual acts" harm ourselves. Our society has forgotten to teach us how not to harm ourselves. Part of the reason is the atomization and the growing moral nihilism of society, partially due to hyper-individualism, but also to scale, technology, multiculturalism, and the dominance of secular ideology in the West.

I guess you are to obtuse to recognize the difference. The point is, you can't help being black, being black isn't a crime. You can chose whether or not to take drugs, and possessing or selling drugs is a crime.

When you harm someone, then we agree that is a crime.

Your rules for when it is and is not appropriate for arresting someone based on that they ... may ... harm someone are just arbitrary. People do all kinds of things that may harm someone. Criminalizing activities based on possibilities is ridiculous. You're a lot more like authoritarian leftists than I am. I am nothing like them. Their whole agenda is based on what could happen. OMG, you may be old and not have saved any money! You may be black and you may run into a racist who won't hire you! OMG, you may be a woman who wants to have sex and you may not be able to afford birth control! You may be married to a gambler and he may be compulsive and he may gamble your money away! You may be married to a pot head and he may mmore on to more drugs, and he may...

We need government to take care of it now!

 

[Steinlight]

I am not for a "morality" police of any kind.

So you're against the Legal Code?

I have never caught an anarchist vibe from you. Are you sure you're against the enforcement of soundly reasoned morality?

Help a brother out here... will ya?

Now you are just being snarky and daft. You know what I mean by the term "morality police"(that means something like the religious police in Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled territory that enforces religious edicts), obviously I am for a legal code. If only options are the extremes like being a morally nihilistic anarchist or being like the Taliban than you are an socially autistic person that cant understand the concept of degree.

OH! I see... I've just got this thing about the misnomer wherein the law can't be affiliated with morality due to the sacrosanct myth of 'separation of church and state'... (It's in the Constitution, somewhere... no one seems to know where, but I've been assured that it is.) So when I see 'morality and law' in a sentence where someone has stated a disregard for morality, in legal terms, I generally follow it up, with prejudice.

Rest assured, I mean you no malice.

Sorry about my response, I assumed the worse and was on guard.

But I agree with you on the so called "separation of church and state" and separating the law from morality. Both very dangerous propositions.

 

[francoHFW]

You'd make a great Nazi. lol

ProggDuppe thinks McCarthy was in the House of Representatives running the HUAC a decade before he became Senator

Link to my mistake, liar?

I was talking about McCarthy, you posted some off-topic nonsense about Hollywood writers

321 artists had their lives ruined, aasshol

That had NOTHING to do with Joe McCarthy!

NOTHING, you ProgDuppe!

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

He led and started the bs witch hunt DUH.

 

[Skylar]

That simply isn't true and most definitely wasn't the argument made in the Loving V. Virginia decision. No such right exists or was argued for. You need to do your research and clearly don't understand the 9th Amendment.

I never claimed it was the basis of the Loving Decision. You asked me where in the constitution the right was located.

I told you: the 9th amendment.

The founders were quite clear that there were reserve rights that the people possessed that aren't' enumerated. In fact, one of the largest arguments against a Bill of Rights was that some might conclude (as you seem to) that unless a right is enumerated, it doesn't exist.

The 9th amendment was created to address such fears. Fears that were quite justified by any of the 'show me that right in the constitution' rhetoric.

 

[Skylar]

I am not for a "morality" police of any kind.

So you're against the Legal Code?

I have never caught an anarchist vibe from you. Are you sure you're against the enforcement of soundly reasoned morality?

Help a brother out here... will ya?

Now you are just being snarky and daft. You know what I mean by the term "morality police"(that means something like the religious police in Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled territory that enforces religious edicts), obviously I am for a legal code. If only options are the extremes like being a morally nihilistic anarchist or being like the Taliban than you are an socially autistic person that cant understand the concept of degree.

OH! I see... I've just got this thing about the misnomer wherein the law can't be affiliated with morality due to the sacrosanct myth of 'separation of church and state'... (It's in the Constitution, somewhere... no one seems to know where, but I've been assured that it is.) So when I see 'morality and law' in a sentence where someone has stated a disregard for morality, in legal terms, I generally follow it up, with prejudice.

Rest assured, I mean you no malice.

Sorry about my response, I assumed the worse and was on guard.

But I agree with you on the so called "separation of church and state" and separating the law from morality. Both very dangerous propositions.

Separation of church and state is only relevant to the separation of the law from morality if morality could only be obtained through religion. I argue that its entirely possible to be moral without religion. Unlinking the two standards.

 

[Steinlight]

I don't know what to tell you, but Libertarians are Liberals(Libertarianism was born of classic liberalism). I don't know what to tell you if you don't understand that libertarianism is merely a school of liberal thought. Open a history book I guess to start, go to wiki, or whatever..

Um ... read my sig ...

The point I am making is that those vices do harm others, and often oneself. And on that point, today we seem to live in a society based on the faulty "harm principle". We always emphasize, "don't hurt others" or "as long as it is consensual"; but we have lost sight of the affect our actions have not only on others but how otherwise "consensual acts" harm ourselves. Our society has forgotten to teach us how not to harm ourselves. Part of the reason is the atomization and the growing moral nihilism of society, partially due to hyper-individualism, but also to scale, technology, multiculturalism, and the dominance of secular ideology in the West.

I guess you are to obtuse to recognize the difference. The point is, you can't help being black, being black isn't a crime. You can chose whether or not to take drugs, and possessing or selling drugs is a crime.

When you harm someone, then we agree that is a crime.

Your rules for when it is and is not appropriate for arresting someone based on that they ... may ... harm someone are just arbitrary. People do all kinds of things that may harm someone. Criminalizing activities based on possibilities is ridiculous. You're a lot more like authoritarian leftists than I am. I am nothing like them. Their whole agenda is based on what could happen. OMG, you may be old and not have saved any money! You may be black and you may run into a racist who won't hire you! OMG, you may be a woman who wants to have sex and you may not be able to afford birth control! You may be married to a gambler and he may be compulsive and he may gamble your money away! You may be married to a pot head and he may mmore on to more drugs, and he may...

We need government to take care of it now!

Much of the law is based on minimizing "harm", or preventative actions. What are traffic laws, or building codes but preventative measures the minimize harm(and measures that reduce the risk of economic and social costs being occurred from say multiple accidents on the road ways or building collapsing due to fire or earthquake). My positions aren't arbitrary at all, but based on the body of evidence of the negative economic and social costs that prostitution, drug use, and gambling have on a society. They are common sense, something you begin to understand with maturing as you grow out of the high school/college libertarian phase.

 

[Steinlight]

That simply isn't true and most definitely wasn't the argument made in the Loving V. Virginia decision. No such right exists or was argued for. You need to do your research and clearly don't understand the 9th Amendment.

I never claimed it was the basis of the Loving Decision. You asked me where in the constitution the right was located.

I told you: the 9th amendment.

The founders were quite clear that there were reserve rights that the people possessed that aren't' enumerated. In fact, one of the largest arguments against a Bill of Rights was that some might conclude (as you seem to) that unless a right is enumerated, it doesn't exist.

The 9th amendment was created to address such fears. Fears that were quite justified by any of the 'show me that right in the constitution' rhetoric.

No right exists. Just because you say something is a right, doesn't make it so and thus covered by the 9th Amendment. The Supreme Court has said no such thing, nor did the Founders.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Oh it's been put to many popular votes... with the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the States having elected the vast majority of the representatives who voted to recognize Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. Most of those majorities, in the majority of states went to the trouble of setting that recognition in their Constitution.

Now you said that you believe in "Majority Rules"... and your ideology is busy over-ruling those majorities through their plants in the judiciary, manipulating the 'honor system'.

We're a republic. Which means that the majority doesn't possess the ability to strip the individual of rights. The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex. But that didn't stop the federal judiciary from protecting the rights of Richard and Mildred Loving and overturning the law that stripped them of their constitutional rights.

See how that worked? Works like that today too. If the majority vote to say, strip individuals of gun rights in Chicago, the federal judiciary intervenes. If the majority vote to say, strip gays of their constitutional right to marry, the federal judiciary intervenes.

Rights generally trump powers. If you're going to deny rights you need a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage simply don't have one.

You're off topic and trolling.

The point was made to expose your comrade as a liar and hypocrite. This due to their having claimed that they were a proponent of 'majority rules', therefore I posed the obvious point to prove that they're only for Majority Rules, when they're in majority... it worked perfectly, as it always does.

 

[Steinlight]

I am not for a "morality" police of any kind.

So you're against the Legal Code?

I have never caught an anarchist vibe from you. Are you sure you're against the enforcement of soundly reasoned morality?

Help a brother out here... will ya?

Now you are just being snarky and daft. You know what I mean by the term "morality police"(that means something like the religious police in Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled territory that enforces religious edicts), obviously I am for a legal code. If only options are the extremes like being a morally nihilistic anarchist or being like the Taliban than you are an socially autistic person that cant understand the concept of degree.

OH! I see... I've just got this thing about the misnomer wherein the law can't be affiliated with morality due to the sacrosanct myth of 'separation of church and state'... (It's in the Constitution, somewhere... no one seems to know where, but I've been assured that it is.) So when I see 'morality and law' in a sentence where someone has stated a disregard for morality, in legal terms, I generally follow it up, with prejudice.

Rest assured, I mean you no malice.

Sorry about my response, I assumed the worse and was on guard.

But I agree with you on the so called "separation of church and state" and separating the law from morality. Both very dangerous propositions.

Separation of church and state is only relevant to the separation of the law from morality if morality could only be obtained through religion. I argue that its entirely possible to be moral without religion. Unlinking the two standards.

You can be moral without being religious, but your morality living in the West is informed by Christian precepts whether you want to admit it or not. Also, without religion, without a God, there is no good or evil objectively speaking and thus all is permissible if one can get away with it.

 

[Skylar]

That simply isn't true and most definitely wasn't the argument made in the Loving V. Virginia decision. No such right exists or was argued for. You need to do your research and clearly don't understand the 9th Amendment.

I never claimed it was the basis of the Loving Decision. You asked me where in the constitution the right was located.

I told you: the 9th amendment.

The founders were quite clear that there were reserve rights that the people possessed that aren't' enumerated. In fact, one of the largest arguments against a Bill of Rights was that some might conclude (as you seem to) that unless a right is enumerated, it doesn't exist.

The 9th amendment was created to address such fears. Fears that were quite justified by any of the 'show me that right in the constitution' rhetoric.

No right exists.

Our system of laws says otherwise, recognizing rights do exist.

Just because you say something is a right, doesn't make it so and thus covered by the 9th Amendment. The Supreme Court has said no such thing, nor did the Founders.

The right doesn't cease to exist because you say so....as the 9th amendment makes clear that enumeration isn't necessary for rights to exist. Making your 'show me where in the constitution' standard meaningless. As articulation in the constitution doesn't define all rights.

 

[bripat9643]

So the founders of this great nation were partisan hacks?????

No they were just hacks....native parties didnt really exist then. see my pics for founders and quotes. Patrick Henry opposed Constitution, as did James Monroe.

Oneof Henry's critisisms was that it was too hard to amend.

BTW let me protest again this techno-fascist "upgrade" of the website.....stay with the old browsers..I guess in this way I am conservative

Good lord you dumb....There is a reason why we have freedom to debate things in this country.

What the hell does that have to do with anything I said?

Because you retard they debated and came up with th constitution that created the greatest country in the world no matter how much you hate it

Tapatalk

you forgot about the advantages of an entire continent of untapped resources, that figured into it as well.

Why didn't that work for the Soviet Union?

 

[Skylar]

Oh it's been put to many popular votes... with the vast majority of the people in the vast majority of the States having elected the vast majority of the representatives who voted to recognize Marriage as the joining of one man and one woman. Most of those majorities, in the majority of states went to the trouble of setting that recognition in their Constitution.

Now you said that you believe in "Majority Rules"... and your ideology is busy over-ruling those majorities through their plants in the judiciary, manipulating the 'honor system'.

We're a republic. Which means that the majority doesn't possess the ability to strip the individual of rights. The majority definitely supported criminalizing interracial sex. But that didn't stop the federal judiciary from protecting the rights of Richard and Mildred Loving and overturning the law that stripped them of their constitutional rights.

See how that worked? Works like that today too. If the majority vote to say, strip individuals of gun rights in Chicago, the federal judiciary intervenes. If the majority vote to say, strip gays of their constitutional right to marry, the federal judiciary intervenes.

Rights generally trump powers. If you're going to deny rights you need a very good reason. And opponents of gay marriage simply don't have one.

You're off topic and trolling.

Oh, its quite on topic. As the nature of our system is both 'majority rules' and 'protection of rights of the individual'. What you're describing is the tyranny of the majority, where any right can be stripped from anyone with a simple majority vote.

That's not our system. Nor was it ever intended to be.

 

[Steinlight]

That simply isn't true and most definitely wasn't the argument made in the Loving V. Virginia decision. No such right exists or was argued for. You need to do your research and clearly don't understand the 9th Amendment.

I never claimed it was the basis of the Loving Decision. You asked me where in the constitution the right was located.

I told you: the 9th amendment.

The founders were quite clear that there were reserve rights that the people possessed that aren't' enumerated. In fact, one of the largest arguments against a Bill of Rights was that some might conclude (as you seem to) that unless a right is enumerated, it doesn't exist.

The 9th amendment was created to address such fears. Fears that were quite justified by any of the 'show me that right in the constitution' rhetoric.

No right exists.

Our system of laws says otherwise, recognizing rights do exist.

Just because you say something is a right, doesn't make it so and thus covered by the 9th Amendment. The Supreme Court has said no such thing, nor did the Founders.

The right doesn't cease to exist because you say so....as the 9th amendment makes clear that enumeration isn't necessary for rights to exist. Making your 'show me where in the constitution' standard meaningless. As articulation in the constitution doesn't define all rights.

Agreed, it doesn't define all rights, but it doesn't make interracial sex a right.

 

[francoHFW]

You notice how the Progs defend the Communists even more voraciously than do member of the old Politboro.

Have to give their master credit for training them so well

No evidence, ignorant chump of the greedy idiot rich.

Well if the "idiot rich" are "robbing you", than how low does that make you?

Retired teacher and businessman, just another citizen getting screwed by your greedy idiot heroes, dumb ass.

 

[Steinlight]

You notice how the Progs defend the Communists even more voraciously than do member of the old Politboro.

Have to give their master credit for training them so well

No evidence, ignorant chump of the greedy idiot rich.

Well if the "idiot rich" are "robbing you", than how low does that make you?

Retired teacher and businessman, just another citizen getting screwed by your greedy idiot heroes, dumb ass.

If you are getting screwed by idiots than that makes you the dumb one.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

That simply isn't true and most definitely wasn't the argument made in the Loving V. Virginia decision. No such right exists or was argued for. You need to do your research and clearly don't understand the 9th Amendment.

I never claimed it was the basis of the Loving Decision. You asked me where in the constitution the right was located.

I told you: the 9th amendment.

The founders were quite clear that there were reserve rights that the people possessed that aren't' enumerated. In fact, one of the largest arguments against a Bill of Rights was that some might conclude (as you seem to) that unless a right is enumerated, it doesn't exist.

The 9th amendment was created to address such fears. Fears that were quite justified by any of the 'show me that right in the constitution' rhetoric.

No right exists. Just because you say something is a right, doesn't make it so and thus covered by the 9th Amendment. The Supreme Court has said no such thing, nor did the Founders.

The US Constitution doesn't provide rights to any one and neither does the SCOTUS.

What's more, the moment that the belief that such does, 'Rights', as a concept, cease to exist. In practical terms, they become, whatever the established power says they are; which renders 'rights' into something closer to temporal privilege.

A free people have no use for such privilege, as the moment they accept such, they cease to be free.

And that's why Americans; we reject those foreign ideas that are hostile to the principles that define us and which sustain us. And we do so without reservation or apology.

 

[Skylar]

You can be moral without being religious, but your morality living in the West is informed by Christian precepts whether you want to admit it or not.

Irrelevant. As one need not say, adopt the concept of the Trinity to recognize that killing is wrong. The acceptance or rejection of Christianity has no intrinsic connection to one's morality. The religion and the morality are separate. And you can absolutely partake of the latter while rejecting the former.

Even in your example, religion is nothing more than a vehicle for information. Once you've received the information, you don't need the vehicle.

Also, without religion, without a God, there is no good or evil objectively speaking and thus all is permissible if one can get away with it.

God is simply a Leviathan. An overarching authority. You can make the same claims in regard to 'Nature'. Or 'Moral Truth'. Or the 'Mandate of Heaven'. Or the 'Greater Good'. Or any other grand authority you wish to conceive of.

A god isn't particularly necessary for morality. An acceptance that there are transcendent truths is.

Worse, religion offers a fallacious veneer of objectivity. When in reality, its ridiculously, spectacularly, outrageously subjective. With the same religious texts justifying the actions of Grand Inquisitor Torquemada and Mother Teresa. Depending on which passages they emphasized, and how they interpreted them.

Without your Leviathan standing in person and perfect, immediate enforcement of said 'moral truths', you're left with the same standard of subjective interpretation that has always existed. Where we make our best judgment call based our understanding of moral truths.

Which history has demonstrated tend to vary wildly from people to people, civilization to civilization, and even era to era in the same civilization.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I am not for a "morality" police of any kind.

So you're against the Legal Code?

I have never caught an anarchist vibe from you. Are you sure you're against the enforcement of soundly reasoned morality?

Help a brother out here... will ya?

Now you are just being snarky and daft. You know what I mean by the term "morality police"(that means something like the religious police in Saudi Arabia or ISIS controlled territory that enforces religious edicts), obviously I am for a legal code. If only options are the extremes like being a morally nihilistic anarchist or being like the Taliban than you are an socially autistic person that cant understand the concept of degree.

OH! I see... I've just got this thing about the misnomer wherein the law can't be affiliated with morality due to the sacrosanct myth of 'separation of church and state'... (It's in the Constitution, somewhere... no one seems to know where, but I've been assured that it is.) So when I see 'morality and law' in a sentence where someone has stated a disregard for morality, in legal terms, I generally follow it up, with prejudice.

Rest assured, I mean you no malice.

Sorry about my response, I assumed the worse and was on guard.

But I agree with you on the so called "separation of church and state" and separating the law from morality. Both very dangerous propositions.

Separation of church and state is only relevant to the separation of the law from morality if morality could only be obtained through religion. I argue that its entirely possible to be moral without religion. Unlinking the two standards.

^^ This...

You want it Stein?

Otherwise I'll handle it. It's only a two poster... so be my guest.

 

[Political Junky]

What a shallow snob you are. So is it any wonder you would equate, Hitler, fascism and the right wing as being one and the same.

Actually, I don't equate them...perhaps if you read the thread first?

Hitler is one example of fascism. Fascism is simply one variation of extremist right-wing politics. There are many others.

btw, What does it tell us about you, that you consider reading to be snobbery?

Fascism was established by one Benito Mussolini, a life long socialist. There is NOTHING 'Right-Wing' about it, except that in its advancement of socialist ideas, it initially allows for the respect of the traditions and heritage of whatever nation it happens to be infecting. This differing from international socialism, which otherwise rejects all national traditions and heritage.

There simply is no other aspects of national socialism which differs from socialism.

Absent National Socialism, OKA: Progressivism, AKA: "A Mixed Economic Model", which nearly every Leftist on this and every other message board on the web, which is even remotely relevant to US politics claims to prefer....

Now the less foolish Leftists will note that National Socialism is 'to the right' of International Socialism such as the respective Marxist Brands... But that such is 'to the right' as Stalinism, does not make it "Rightwing".

But your claims that it does, LOL! are Hysterical!

Mussolini was a socialist in his early years, but had a falling out with them. He became a Conservative.
Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Reagan switched parties, remember?